ArticlePLOS global public health2025
Lead in traditional eyeliners: An investigation into use and sources of exposure in King County, Washington.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Traditional eyeliners contain high concentrations of lead, a neurotoxic metal. In King County, Washington (WA), United States (US), several refugee and immigrant populations continue to use these products, some containing up to 800,000 parts per million (ppm) lead. Lead is toxic, especially in young children where it can cause neurological defects and growth delays. We investigated lead in eyeliners used by these communities, including traditional and nontraditional products. We conducted community-based participatory research (CBPR) to understand the use of traditional eyeliners in the local Afghan community. Our study revealed that Afghan community members were largely unaware of the dangers of lead in traditional eyeliners, but once made aware, most were willing to change their behaviors. We found that traditional eyeliners contained significantly higher median lead concentrations (10 ppm) than nontraditional eyeliners (0.06 ppm). Eyeliners manufactured in the US and the European Union (EU) had significantly lower median lead concentrations (0.94 ppm) than those from Afghanistan (29 ppm) and other low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) (2.8 ppm). Some traditional eyeliners labeled as "lead-free" contained very high lead concentrations (up to 610,000 ppm), well above the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) guideline of 10 ppm and the WA safety guideline of 1 ppm. Our findings suggest that traditional eyeliners currently used in the US still contain hazardous materials.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.